|• PPBI 10-Q 2012-Q2 • PPBI 10-Q 2012-Q2 EX 31.1 • PPBI 10-Q 2012-Q2 EX 31.2 • PPBI 10-Q 2012-Q2 EX 32 • PPBI 10-Q 2012-Q2 EX-101 INSTANCE DOCUMENT • PPBI 10-Q 2012-Q2 EX-101 SCHEMA DOCUMENT • PPBI 10-Q 2012-Q2 EX-101 CALCULATION DOCUMENT • PPBI 10-Q 2012-Q2 EX-101 DEFINITION DOCUMENT • PPBI 10-Q 2012-Q2 EX-101 LABELS LINKBASE DOCUMENT • PPBI 10-Q 2012-Q2 EX-101 PRESENTATION LINKBASE DOCUMENT|
Washington, DC 20549
For the quarterly period ended June 30, 2012
( ) TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
For the transition period from _______ to _______
Commission File Number 0-22193
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes [ X ] No [_]
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files). Yes [X] No [_]
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See definition of “accelerated filer”, “large accelerated filer”, and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act).
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Exchange Act Rule 12b-2). Yes [ ] No [X]
The number of shares outstanding of the registrant's common stock as of August 10, 2012 was 10,329,934.
PACIFIC PREMIER BANCORP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
FOR THE QUARTER ENDED JUNE 30, 2012
Consolidated Statements of Financial Condition: At June 30, 2012 (unaudited), December 31, 2011 (audited) and June 30, 2011 (unaudited)
Consolidated Statements of Operations: For the three and six months ended June 30, 2012 and 2011 (unaudited)
Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income: For the six months ended June 30, 2012 and 2011 (unaudited)
Consolidated Statements of Stockholders’ Equity and Other Comprehensive Income: For the six months ended June 30, 2012 and 2011 (unaudited)
Accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.
Accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.
PACIFIC PREMIER BANCORP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARY
June 30, 2012
Note 1 - Basis of Presentation
The consolidated financial statements include the accounts of Pacific Premier Bancorp, Inc. (the “Corporation”) and its wholly owned subsidiaries, including Pacific Premier Bank (the “Bank”) (collectively, the “Company,” “we,” “our” or “us”). All significant intercompany accounts and transactions have been eliminated in consolidation.
In the opinion of management, the consolidated financial statements contain all adjustments (consisting of normal recurring accruals) necessary to present fairly the Company’s financial position as of June 30, 2012, December 31, 2011, and June 30, 2011, the results of its operations and comprehensive income for the three and six months ended June 30, 2012 and 2011 and the changes in stockholders’ equity and cash flows for the six months ended June 30, 2012 and 2011. Operating results or comprehensive income for the three and six months ended June 30, 2012 are not necessarily indicative of the results or comprehensive income that may be expected for any other interim period or the full year ending December 31, 2012.
Certain information and note disclosures normally included in financial statements prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“U.S. GAAP”) have been condensed or omitted pursuant to the rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). The unaudited consolidated financial statements should be read in conjunction with the audited consolidated financial statements and notes thereto included in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2011.
The Company accounts for its investments in its wholly owned special purpose entity, PPBI Trust I, under the equity method whereby the subsidiary’s net earnings are recognized in the Company’s statement of operations.
Note 2 – Recently Issued Accounting Pronouncements
In April 2011, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued Accounting Standards Update (“ASU”) No. 2011-03 modifies the criteria for determining when repurchase agreements would be accounted for as a secured borrowing rather than as a sale. Currently, an entity that maintains effective control over transferred financial assets must account for the transfer as a secured borrowing rather than as a sale. The provisions of ASU No. 2011-03 removes from the assessment of effective control the criterion requiring the transferor to have the ability to repurchase or redeem the financial assets on substantially the agreed terms, even in the event of default by the transferee. The FASB believes that contractual rights and obligations determine effective control and that there does not need to be a requirement to assess the ability to exercise those rights. ASU No. 2011-03 does not change the other existing criteria used in the assessment of effective control. The provisions of ASU No. 2011-03 are effective prospectively for transactions, or modifications of existing transactions, that occur on or after January 1, 2012. The Company accounts for all of its repurchase agreements as collateralized financing arrangements. The Company adopted the provisions of ASU No. 2011-03 effective January 1, 2012. The provisions of ASU No. 2011-03 had no impact on the Company’s Consolidated Financial Statements.
In May 2011, the FASB issued ASU No. 2011-04, “Amendments to Achieve Common Fair Value Measurement and Disclosure Requirements in U.S. GAAP and IFRSs.” The provisions of ASU No. 2011-04 result in a consistent definition of fair value and common requirements for the measurement of and disclosure about fair value between U.S. GAAP and International Financial Reporting Standards (“IFRS”). The changes to U.S. GAAP as a result of ASU No. 2011-04 are as follows: (1) The concepts of highest and best use and valuation premise are only relevant when measuring the fair value of nonfinancial assets (that is, it does not apply to financial assets or any liabilities); (2) U.S. GAAP currently prohibits application of a blockage factor in valuing financial instruments with quoted prices in active markets, which prohibition extends to all fair value measurements; (3) An exception is provided to the basic fair value measurement principles for an entity that holds a group of financial assets and financial liabilities with offsetting positions in market risks or counterparty credit risk that are managed on the basis of the entity’s net exposure to either of those risks, which exception allows the entity, if certain criteria are met, to measure the fair value of the net asset or liability position in a manner consistent with how market participants would price the net risk position; (4) Aligns the fair value measurement of instruments classified within an entity’s shareholders’ equity with the guidance for liabilities; and (5) Disclosure requirements have been enhanced for Level 3 fair value measurements to disclose quantitative information about unobservable inputs and assumptions used, to describe the valuation processes used by the entity, and to qualitatively describe the sensitivity of fair value measurements to changes in unobservable inputs and the interrelationships between those inputs. In addition, entities must report the level in the fair value hierarchy of items that are not measured at fair value in the statement of condition but whose fair value must be disclosed. The Company adopted the provisions of ASU No. 2011-04 effective January 1, 2012. The fair value measurement provisions of ASU No. 2011-04 had no impact on the Company’s Consolidated Financial Statements. See Note 9 to the Consolidated Financial Statements for the enhanced disclosures required by ASU No. 2011-04.
In June 2011, the FASB issued ASU No. 2011-05, “Presentation of Comprehensive Income.” The provisions of ASU No. 2011-05 allow an entity the option to present the total of comprehensive income, the components of net income, and the components of other comprehensive income either in a single continuous statement of comprehensive income or in two separate but consecutive statements. In both options, an entity is required to present each component of net income along with total net income, each component of other comprehensive income along with a total for other comprehensive income, and a total amount for comprehensive income. Under either method, entities are required to present on the face of the financial statements reclassification adjustments for items that are reclassified from other comprehensive income to net income in the statement(s) where the components of net income and the components of other comprehensive income are presented. ASU No. 2011-05 also eliminates the option to present the components of other comprehensive income as part of the statement of changes in shareholders’ equity but does not change the items that must be reported in other comprehensive income or when an item of other comprehensive income must be reclassified to net income. ASU No. 2011-05 was effective for the Company’s interim reporting period beginning on or after January 1, 2012, with retrospective application required. In December 2011, the FASB issued ASU No. 2011-12, “Deferral of the Effective Date for Amendments to the Presentation of Reclassifications of Items Out of Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income in Accounting Standards Update No. 2011-05.” The provisions of ASU No. 2011-12 defer indefinitely the requirement for entities to present reclassification adjustments out of accumulated other comprehensive income by component in both the statement in which net income is presented and the statement in which other comprehensive income is presented. ASU No. 2011-12, which shares the same effective date as ASU No. 2011-05, does not defer the requirement for entities to present components of comprehensive income in either a single continuous statement of comprehensive income or in two separate but consecutive statements. The Company adopted the provisions of ASU No. 2011-05 and ASU No. 2011-12 which resulted in a new statement of comprehensive income beginning with the interim period ended March 31, 2012. The adoption of ASU No. 2011-05 and ASU No. 2011-12 had no impact on the Company’s statements of income and condition.
In September 2011, the FASB issued ASU No. 2011-08, “Intangibles - Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets: Testing Goodwill for Impairment”. The provisions of ASU No. 2011-08 allows an entity the option to first assess the qualitative factors to determine whether the existence of events or circumstances leads to a determination that is it more likely than not that the fair value of a reporting unit is less than its carrying amount. Under ASU 2011-08, if, after that assessment is made, an entity determines that it is more likely than not that the carrying value of goodwill is not impaired, then the two-step impairment test is not required. However, if the entity concludes otherwise, the two-step impairment test would be required. The provisions of ASU 2011-08 are effective for interim and annual periods beginning after December 15, 2011, although early adoption was allowed. Adoption of ASU 2011-08 had no material impact on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations or liquidity.
Future Application of Accounting Pronouncements
In December 2011, the FASB issued ASU No. 2011-11, “Disclosures About Offsetting Assets and Liabilities.” This project began as an attempt to converge the offsetting requirements under U.S. GAAP and IFRS. However, as the financial accounting Boards were not able to reach a converged solution with regards to offsetting requirements, the Boards developed convergent disclosure requirements to assist in reconciling differences in the offsetting requirements under U.S. GAAP and IFRS. The new disclosure requirements mandate that entities disclose both gross and net information about instruments and transactions eligible for offset in the statement of financial position as well as instruments and transactions subject to an agreement similar to a master netting arrangement. ASU No. 2011-11 also requires disclosure of collateral received and posted in connection with master netting agreements or similar arrangements. ASU No. 2011-11 is effective for interim and annual reporting periods beginning on or after January 1, 2013. As the provisions of ASU No. 2011-11 only impact the disclosure requirements related to the offsetting of assets and liabilities, the adoption will have no impact on the Company’s Consolidated Financial Statements.
Note 3 – Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) Acquisitions
Palm Desert National Bank Acquisition
Effective April 27, 2012, the Bank acquired certain assets and assumed certain liabilities of Palm Desert National Bank (“Palm Desert National”) from the FDIC as receiver for Palm Desert National (the “Palm Desert National Acquisition”), pursuant to the terms of a purchase and assumption agreement entered into by the Bank and the FDIC on April 27, 2012. The Palm Desert National Acquisition included one branch of Palm Desert National that became a branch of the Bank upon consummation of the Palm Desert National Acquisition. The Bank did not enter into any loss sharing agreements with the FDIC in connection the Palm Desert national Acquisition. As a result of the Palm Desert National Acquisition, the Bank acquired and recorded at the acquisition date certain assets with a fair value of approximately $120.9 million, including:
Also as a result of the Palm Desert National Acquisition, the Bank assumed and recorded at acquisition date certain liabilities with a fair value of approximately $118.0 million, including:
The fair values of the assets acquired and liabilities assumed were determined based on the requirements of FASB Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC”) Topic 820: Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures.
Canyon National Bank Acquisition
Effective February 11, 2011, the Bank acquired certain assets and assumed certain liabilities of Canyon National Bank (“Canyon National”) from the FDIC as receiver for Canyon National (the “Canyon National Acquisition”), pursuant to the terms of a purchase and assumption agreement entered into by the Bank and the FDIC on February 11, 2011. The Canyon National Acquisition included the three branches of Canyon National, all of which became branches of the Bank upon consummation of the Canyon National Acquisition. The Bank did not enter into any loss sharing agreements with the FDIC in connection with the Canyon National Acquisition. As a result of the Canyon National Acquisition, the Bank acquired and received certain assets with a fair value of approximately $208.9 million, including $149.7 million of loans, $16.1 million of a FDIC receivable, $13.2 million of cash and cash equivalents, $12.8 million of investment securities, $12.0 million of OREO, $2.3 million of a core deposit intangibles, $1.5 million of other assets and $1.3 million of FHLB and Federal Reserve Bank stock. Liabilities with a fair value of approximately $206.6 million were also assumed, including $204.7 million of deposits, $1.9 million in deferred tax liability and $39,000 of other liabilities. The fair values of the assets acquired and liabilities assumed were determined based on the requirements of FASB ASC Topic 820: Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures.
Note 4 – Loans Held for Investment
The following table sets forth the composition of our loan portfolio in dollar amounts at the dates indicated:
From time to time, we may purchase or sell loans in order to manage concentrations, maximize interest income, change risk profiles, improve returns and generate liquidity.
The Company grants residential and commercial loans held for investment to customers located primarily in Southern California. Consequently, the underlying collateral for our loans and a borrower’s ability to repay may be impacted unfavorably by adverse changes in the economy and real estate market in the region.
Under applicable laws and regulations, the Bank may not make secured loans to one borrower in excess of 25% of unimpaired capital plus surplus and likewise in excess of 15% for unsecured loans. These loans-to-one borrower limitations result in a dollar limitation of $25.6 million for secured loans and $15.4 million for unsecured loans at June 30, 2012. At June 30, 2012, the Bank’s largest aggregate outstanding balance of loans to one borrower was $11.9 million of secured credit.
Purchase Credit Impaired
The following table provides a summary of the Company’s investment in purchase credit impaired loans, acquired from Canyon National and Palm Desert National, as of the period indicated:
On the acquisition date, the amount by which the undiscounted expected cash flows of the purchased credit impaired loans exceed the estimated fair value of the loan is the “accretable yield.” The accretable yield is measured at each financial reporting date and represents the difference between the remaining undiscounted expected cash flows and the current carrying value of the purchased credit impaired loan. At June 30, 2012, the Company had $14.8 million of purchased credit impaired loans, of which $4.6 million were placed on nonaccrual status.
The following table summarizes the accretable yield on the purchased credit impaired for the six months ended June 30, 2012:
The following tables provide a summary of the Company’s investment in impaired loans as of the period indicated:
The Company considers a loan to be impaired when, based on current information and events, it is probable the Company will be unable to collect all amounts due according to the contractual terms of the loan agreement or it is determined that the likelihood of the Company receiving all scheduled payments, including interest, when due is remote. The Company has no commitments to lend additional funds to debtors whose loans have been impaired.
The Company reviews loans for impairment when the loan is classified as substandard or worse, delinquent 90 days, or determined by management to be collateral dependent, or when the borrower files bankruptcy or is granted a troubled debt restructurings (“TDRs”). Measurement of impairment is based on the loan’s expected future cash flows discounted at the loan’s effective interest rate, measured by reference to an observable market value, if one exists, or the fair value of the collateral if the loan is deemed collateral dependent. All loans are generally charged-off at such time the loan is classified as a loss. Valuation allowances are determined on a loan-by-loan basis or by aggregating loans with similar risk characteristics.
The following table provides additional detail on the components of impaired loans at the period end indicated:
When loans are placed on nonaccrual status all accrued interest is reversed from earnings. Payments received on nonaccrual loans are generally applied as a reduction to the loan principal balance. If the likelihood of further loss is remote, the Company will recognize interest on a cash basis only. Loans may be returned to accruing status if the Company believes that all remaining principal and interest is fully collectible and there has been at least three months of sustained repayment performance since the loan was placed on nonaccrual.
The Company does not accrue interest on loans 90 days or more past due or when, in the opinion of management, there is reasonable doubt as to the collection of interest. The Company had impaired loans on nonaccrual status at June 30, 2012 of $3.8 million, December 31, 2011 of $5.6 million, and June 30, 2011 of $10.8 million. The Company had no loans 90 days or more past due and still accruing at June 30, 2012, December 31, 2011 or June 30, 2011.
The Company had an immaterial amount of TDRs related to three U.S. Small Business Administration (“SBA”) loans which were all completed prior to 2011.
Concentration of Credit Risk
As of June 30, 2012, the Company’s loan portfolio was collateralized by various forms of real estate and business assets located principally in Southern California. The Company’s loan portfolio contains concentrations of credit in multi-family real estate, commercial non-owner occupied real estate and commercial owner occupied business loans. The Company maintains policies approved by the Company’s Board of Directors (the “Board”) that address these concentrations and continues to diversify its loan portfolio through loan originations, purchases and sales to meet approved concentration levels. While management believes that the collateral presently securing these loans is adequate, there can be no assurances that further significant deterioration in the California real estate market and economy would not expose the Company to significantly greater credit risk.
Credit Quality and Credit Risk Management
The Company’s credit quality is maintained and credit risk managed in two distinct areas. The first is the loan origination process, wherein the Bank underwrites credit quality and chooses which risks it is willing to accept. The second is in the ongoing oversight of the loan portfolio, where existing credit risk is measured and monitored, and where performance issues are dealt with in a timely and comprehensive fashion.
The Company maintains a comprehensive credit policy which sets forth minimum and maximum tolerances for key elements of loan risk. The policy identifies and sets forth specific guidelines for analyzing each of the loan products the Company offers from both an individual and portfolio wide basis. The credit policy is reviewed annually by the Board. The Bank’s seasoned underwriters ensure all key risk factors are analyzed with nearly all underwriting including a comprehensive global cash flow analysis of the prospective borrowers. The credit approval process mandates multiple-signature approval by the management credit committee for every loan that requires any subjective credit analysis.
Credit risk is managed within the loan portfolio by the Company’s Portfolio Management department based on a comprehensive credit and investment review policy. This policy requires a program of financial data collection and analysis, comprehensive loan reviews, property and/or business inspections and monitoring of portfolio concentrations and trends. The Portfolio Management department also monitors asset-based lines of credit, loan covenants and other conditions associated with the Company’s business loans as a means to help identify potential credit risk. Individual loans, excluding the homogeneous loan portfolio, are reviewed at least biennially, and in most cases more often, including the assignment of a risk grade.
Risk grades are based on a six-grade Pass scale, along with Special Mention, Substandard, Doubtful and Loss classifications as such classifications are defined by the regulatory agencies. The assignment of risk grades allows the Company to, among other things, identify the risk associated with each credit in the portfolio, and to provide a basis for estimating credit losses inherent in the portfolio. Risk grades are reviewed regularly by the Company’s Credit and Investment Review committee, and are reviewed annually by an independent third-party, as well as by regulatory agencies during scheduled examinations.
The following provides brief definitions for risk grades assigned to loans in the portfolio:
The Portfolio Management department also manages loan performance risks, collections, workouts, bankruptcies and foreclosures. Loan performance risks are mitigated by our portfolio managers acting promptly and assertively to address problem credits when they are identified. Collection efforts are commenced immediately upon non-payment, and the portfolio managers seek to promptly determine the appropriate steps to minimize the Company’s risk of loss. When foreclosure will maximize the Company’s recovery for a non-performing loan, the portfolio managers will take appropriate action to initiate the foreclosure process.
When a loan is graded as special mention or substandard or doubtful, the Company obtains an updated valuation of the underlying collateral. If the credit in question is also identified as impaired, a valuation allowance, if necessary, is established against such loan or a loss is recognized by a charge to the allowance for loan losses (“ALLL”) if management believes that the full amount of the Company’s recorded investment in the loan is no longer collectable. The Company typically continues to obtain updated valuations of underlying collateral for special mention and classified loans on an annual basis in order to have the most current indication of fair value. Once a loan is identified as impaired, an analysis of the underlying collateral is performed at least quarterly, and corresponding changes in any related valuation allowance are made or balances deemed to be fully uncollectable are charged-off.
The following tables stratifies the loan portfolio by the Company’s internal risk grading system as well as certain other information concerning the credit quality of the loan portfolio as of the periods indicated:
The following tables set forth delinquencies in the Company’s loan portfolio at the dates indicated: